COLOMBO, Thursday – The Government has taken the next formal step towards extending the retirement age of Sri Lanka’s superior court judges by publishing in the Gazette a Bill seeking to amend the Constitution and related legislation, a move that is expected to trigger renewed legal and constitutional scrutiny in the weeks ahead.
The proposed constitutional amendment seeks to increase the retirement age of judges of the Supreme Court while judges of the Court of Appeal would see their retirement age rise from 63 to 65 years. Complementary amendments have also been proposed to the Judicature Act to increase the retirement ages of judges serving in the subordinate courts.
The publication of the Bill follows Cabinet approval granted earlier this year but marks a significantly more important stage in the legislative process. By gazetting the proposed amendments, the Government has formally initiated the constitutional procedure required before Parliament can debate and vote on the measure.
The proposal has generated considerable discussion within legal and constitutional circles, not so much because of the proposed retirement ages themselves, but because of the implications of altering the tenure of judges whose terms of office are presently governed by the Constitution. While many jurisdictions have reviewed judicial retirement ages in response to increasing life expectancy and the value of retaining experienced judges, constitutional experts point out that the manner in which such changes are introduced is equally important.
The Bar Association of Sri Lanka has previously expressed reservations regarding the proposal, arguing that any amendment affecting the tenure of incumbent judges must be approached with great care to ensure that judicial independence is not perceived to have been compromised. Several constitutional commentators have similarly questioned whether extending the tenure of sitting judges could engage entrenched constitutional provisions relating to the sovereignty of the People and the independence of the judiciary.
The Government, however, has maintained that the proposal is intended to preserve judicial experience, promote continuity within the superior courts and strengthen the administration of justice. Ministers have rejected suggestions that the amendment is designed to benefit any individual judge, describing it instead as part of a broader programme of judicial reform.
Attention is now expected to turn to the constitutional process itself. Once placed on the Order Paper of Parliament, the Bill may be challenged before the Supreme Court, which will be called upon to determine whether any of its provisions are inconsistent with the Constitution and, if so, the manner in which Parliament may lawfully proceed. Depending upon that determination, the legislation could require approval by a two-thirds majority in Parliament, while certain constitutional questions may also raise the issue of whether approval at a Referendum is necessary.
Whatever the eventual outcome, the publication of the Bill ensures that one of the most important constitutional debates of recent years has now formally begun.
The issue extends beyond the retirement age of judges themselves. It touches upon the relationship between Parliament and the judiciary, the security of judicial tenure and the constitutional safeguards designed to preserve public confidence in the independence of the courts.
For that reason, the debate that now lies ahead is likely to be measured not merely by the number of years added to judicial service, but by whether the process adopted strengthens – or weakens – public confidence in one of the Republic’s most important democratic institutions.
